Kemar Rogelo White v. WARDEN PIKE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY On Appeal from the United States District…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 23-2872
__________
KEMAR ROGELO WHITE,
Appellant
v.
WARDEN PIKE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-01045)
District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
August 15, 2024
Before: SHWARTZ, RESTREPO, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 12, 2024)
___________
OPINION*
___________
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM
Appellant Kemar White, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s
denial of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the following reasons,
we will reverse that judgment and remand for further proceedings.
I.
White, a Jamaican citizen who became a lawful permanent resident of the United
States in 2003, was charged as removable and placed in Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) detention in June 2022, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). His
requests for relief from removal have been denied, and his petition for review is stayed in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit pending a decision in another
matter. See White v. Garland, C.A. No. 23-1703 (4th Cir. Dec. 13, 2023). In June 2023,
White filed a § 2241 petition in the District Court. He argued that, given his year-long
detention in prison—with no foreseeable end—he was entitled to an individualized bond
hearing to determine whether the continued detention was necessary. The District Court
denied the petition, concluding that although the conditions of White’s detention weighed
in favor of granting habeas relief, that detention “had not continued for an unreasonable
duration.” Dkt. No. 12 at 6. White filed a timely notice of appeal.
II.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a). We exercise de novo
review over the District Court’s denial of habeas relief. See German Santos v. Warden
Pike Cty. Corr. Facility, 965 F.3d 203, 208 (3d Cir. 2020).

-- 2 of 4 --

3
III.
Under the Due Process Clause, the Attorney General may detain a noncitizen
pursuant to § 1226(c) for a reasonable time, after which an individualized hearing is
necessary. See id. at 210. Reasonableness is a fact-specific inquiry, which involves
consideration of: (1) the detention’s duration, the most important factor; (2) whether the
detention is likely to continue; (3) the reasons for the delay; and (4) whether the
conditions of confinement are meaningfully different from criminal punishment. Id. at
211.
Given its length, likelihood of continuing, and conditions, we conclude that
White’s ongoing detention has become unreasonable. Indeed, given its similarity to
German Santos, that case controls our decision here. First, although there is no “bright-
line threshold” for determining the reasonableness of a detention’s duration, White has
already been detained for more than two years, almost as long as the petitioner’s
“unreasonably long” two-and-a-half-year detention in German Santos. See id. at 211-12
(measuring length of detention at the time of appellate decision and noting that the
detention was “more than double the six-month-to-one-year period that triggered a bond
hearing” in Chavez-Alvarez v. Warden York County Prison, 783 F.3d 469 (3d Cir.
2015)); cf. Gayle v. Warden Monmouth Cty. Corr. Inst., 12 F.4th 321, 332 (3d Cir. 2021)
(explaining that an “unreasonably long” detention under § 1226(c) “may be six months or
more” (internal quotations omitted)). That length “weighs strongly” in White’s favor.
German Santos, 965 F.3d at 212.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Second, White’s petition for review is stayed, and he will stay in prison as long as
it takes for a decision to be issued. And because his petition for review is stayed pending
another case, once that other case is decided, White and the Government may be required
to provide supplemental briefing addressing the impact of that case. That would add
months more in prison, which “strongly supports a finding of unreasonableness.” Id.
Third, we neither punish White for his “good-faith challenge[s] to his removal” nor do
we discern carelessness or bad faith by the Government, so the reasons for delay do not
favor either side. Id. at 211. Finally, White has been confined “alongside convicted
criminals” for more than two years, in the same prison that caused us to conclude that a
petitioner’s “detention [was] indistinguishable from criminal punishment.” Id. at 212-13.
As in German Santos, “[t]hose conditions strongly favor a finding of unreasonableness.”
Id. at 213.
IV.
Accordingly, like in German Santos, we are satisfied that the Government must
hold a bond hearing to justify White’s continued detention. We thus reverse the District
Court’s judgment and remand to the District Court to order a bond hearing.

-- 4 of 4 --